Thursday, November 8, 2012

Statement Analysis of Misty Croslin 911 Call







Statement Analysis: Misty 911 Call
911 transcript for missing Haleigh Cummings .



911: “911, what’s your emergency”

Misty Croslin: “Hi…umm…I just woke up…and our backdoor was wide open and I think…and I can’t find our daughter

Note the call begins with a greeting.  Most guilty callers in homicides begin with a greeting where innocent callers have an urgency that bypasses politeness.

Note the order in which she speaks. Order is important to note. Whether it is the chronological order in which you name your children, your siblings, or even the names of friends, order has reason. It an "excited utterance", order speaks directly of the importance.

Here, Misty tells the 911 operator 3 things:

1. That she was asleep. This is THE single most important element for the caller: that the police know she was asleep and has now just woke up.

2. That "our backdoor was wide open".

Notice that the 2nd most important thing for the police to know is about the backdoor being wide open. Misty says "our" backdoor; not "the" backdoor. Pronoun gives us ownership. "the backdoor" would be a common phrase used by any caller since the caller is from the residence. For Misty, the most important fact for the police to know is that she was sleeping; secondly, that the backdoor was open; not just the backdoor, but "our" backdoor, plural.

3. Thirdly, and lastly, she reports a missing child.

It is commonsense to suppose that if your child was missing, it would be the very first thing out of your mouth. It is a reflex by not only a parent, but a step parent, a relative, a caretaker, a babysitter. In Misty Croslin's mind, it is low on the list of priority.

We deem this 911 call to be deceptive; even from the onset.

Why did Misty say "our daughter"?

When a parent says "our" daughter, or "our" son, this is an indicator that a step parent, (or step caretaker, etc) is likely involved. When biological parents speak, it is not the norm for them to say "our daughter" as they, even when speaking together, still use the natural, "my" daughter.

The exception may be when parents have already discussed divorce and will lead, eventually, to step parenting because one of the parents may have been involved with another love interest.

President Clinton, after the Monica Lewinsky scandal, said he need to repair things with his mother, his wife, and "our daughter"; a strong indication that he and Hillary had discussed divorce. (Another strong indication at that time was the black eye that President Clinton sported after he told the country that his definition of sexual relations was not the same as most others; Hillary included).

Why did Misty rely upon the plural in both "our back door" and "our daughter"?

Had Misty already considered herself a step parent, it makes sense. She said, "them kids loved me like they was my own..." (past tense language noted).

But why "our" door? The norm would not have been "my back door" unless the person lived alone. Even then, the common: "the door".

Note: When someone says I must make the bed, they are likely married. When someone says they must make "my bed" they are likely single. When a married person says, "I must make my bed" they are likely headed for divorce and are already taking ownership. For married couples, "the" is the norm. "The" dog is a family dog, but "my" dog is taken care of by one person more than the others.

Since Misty is in her residence, it is a red flag that she does not use the norm.

This leads to the question: why?

could it be that Misty has been coached? This would explain the plural use here and with "our" daughter.

Misty also began a sentence with "I think..." but did not complete it. Fragmented sentences show stress as they are fragmented thoughts. What did she think? Was an explanation of what she thinks happened about to follow?

911: “you can’t find what?”

Misty Croslin:”our daughter”

Misty revisits the plural language of step parenting, or a prepared or coached call.

911:” OK, what’s your address?

Misty Croslin: “(inaudible)”

911: “OK, what’s the numerical?”

Misty Croslin: “The numerical…what’s that?”

911: “the number…green lane?”

Misty Croslin: “Yes”

911: “OK when did you last see her?”

Misty Croslin: “Um, we like just, you know…it was about 10 o’clock- she was sleeping- I was cleaning…
Here is another indicator of deception. The 911 operator asked about the last time Misty saw Haleigh. This is a sensitive question. Misty was asked when was the last time "you" saw her. Misty is unable to take ownership and begins with "um" stalling to think (a parent on high alert has adrenaline pumping overtime and has VIVID recall) and then weakens her statement with "we like just", "you know" ("you know" is often a phrase, but it is also employed to convince rather than report. This is supposed to be an informative call; not an editorialized story nor a building of an alibi. Misty began the call building her alibi; not reporting)

Misty said she was sleeping, but did not answer the question precisely, but immediatley changed the subject back away from the missing child to herself:

"I was cleaning"

NOTE: cleaning, laundry, bathing, showering, washing of hands: when enter into a statement further exploration for sexual abuse must begin, as these phrases are commonly used in cases where sexual abuse has taken place. In a child's language (or an adult recalling childhood abuse) we often have the mentioning of blankets, coverings, opening of doors, and closing of doors

What would Misty's cleaning have to do with Haleigh's disappearance. This is building of an alibi for Misty, even if it does not appear sensible. Look at the number of sentences that Misty spoke reporting a missing child.

How many sentences were about the missing child?
How many sentences were about Misty?

911: “OK- how old is your daughter?”


Misty Croslin: “She’s five”

911: “Ok…what was she last seen wearing? Maam…”

Misty Croslin: “She was in her pajamas- she was sleeping…”
Misty mentions now, for the 2nd time, that Haleigh was sleeping. The question was answered, but additional information is given. When information appears unimportant, in Statement Analysis, we consider it doubly important. It is vital that the 911 operator understand, from Misty's viewpoint, that Haleigh was sleeping.

I believe from Misty's emphasis that Haleigh was, at this time, not sleeping. For Misty, Haleigh being asleep is too important. I do not believe that Haleigh died in her sleep.

911: “OK…alright…You said your back door was wide open?”

Misty Croslin: “yes- it was bricked- there was a brick on the floor…when I was asleep it was not like that.”
Here, in Misty's language, enters a brick. "it was bricked"; not "it was open" nor even "it was held open by a brick". For Misty, being "bricked" means the brick had control over the door. But as quickly as Misty mentions the door and the brick, she immediatley states again that she, Misty, was alseep, and that at that time, there was nothing "bricked". I believe that this language may suggest the manner in which Haleigh died or was disposed of. It is in Misty's language for good reason.

When Texas Equasearch Tim Miller went to Casey Anthony's home, Cindy would not cooperate with the search, as she insisted Caylee was alive. "George and I don't believe Caylee's in the woods, or anything". Caylee was found less than a half mile from her house, in the woods. "George and I" rather than she, herself, reduces committment to the statement, as she does not wish to own this statement alone. The "woods" was in her mind likely because she knew that Caylee's remains were out in the woods, subject to wild animals and bug life.


911: Ok…the back door…listen to me…your back door was wide open…what are you talking about a brick?”

Misty Croslin: “(inaudible)”

911: “what is a brick?”

Misty Croslin: “it’s almost like– on the stairs- we have a walkway…”

911:” uh huh….and there was a brick laying there?”

Misty Croslin: “yes…it’s still there”
Misty identifies the cinder block for the 911 operator. She now identifies where a block may be found, at the crime scene.

(background) tell them they’ve better come on…

911: “we’ve got em coming- tell him we’ve got them coming”

Misty Croslin: “they’re coming”

911: “Ok what’s the color of your house ma’am?

Misty Croslin: “blue”

911: “blue, OK
(pause)
OK- what does she look like? How tall is she? Give me some description of her.”

Misty Croslin: “How tall she she? Like long hair like curly…with curls..
Misty answers a question with a question, meaning that this is a senstive question to her and she needs time to think. Even with Turner's Syndrome and doctor appointments, Misty likely does not know Haleigh's height and weight. The parent that brings a child repeatedly to a doctor knows this instantly. Usually one parent knows and the other doesn't, as both generally cannot make regular doctor appointments, but Haleigh was a special needs child and the height and weight is likely taken at every appointment. Misty will struggle if asked for specifics. Misty does not answer how tall she is, nor eye color, or hair color. All she can say is that her hair is curly. This is the excited utterance and reference for Misty: seeing Haleigh's curly hair. Was Haleigh wounded in the head? Was the head used to attach a brick? Was she hit with a brick and "shut up" by someone? Was she face down in the bed with curly hair showing? Curly hair is the answer Misty gives to how tall is Haleigh. This is what was in her mind. 



911: “long curls…what color?”

Misty Croslin: “(inaudible)”

911:” ok- what color hair? Brown hair?”

Misty Croslin: “Yes…oh my gosh….”
The 911 operator struggles to get answers. Misty appears to be in a panic over these questions, but was not in a panic when she first reported Haleigh missing. These are specific questions but they are not difficult questions. The 911 operator is now asking compound questions; likely out of frustration. Compound questions are to be avoided. They allow the subject to answer any question that is easist to answer. It is often done by television hosts who enjoy hearing their own voice more than the answers by the subject. Here, it is a sign of frustration as questions are not being answered in a timely manner.


30 April 2010 UPDATE.

Here are some follow up comments from others:



I think Misty's "I don't wanna. ..." may be "I don't wanna do this..(go along with the lies) or maybe "I don't wanna go to prison for the rest of my life."

The lack of height and the hair issue. Sounds to me the last thing she saw was someone carrying Haleigh out the door in their arms, limp, with her hair hanging down.

Leads me to still think Haleigh ingested something, Misty told Ronald this, she wanted to take the child to the hospital, he said no, then Haleigh died. Maybe Ronald did try to call her and maybe she didn't want to pick up because she didn't know how to tell Ronald his kid was dead.

I wonder if someone was dropping off drugs while Ronald was at work and he blames them for leaving them in the house assessible to Haleigh.

As to the birth date, I don't think Ronald wanted to remember her birth date...if she hadn' been born, then this shit wouldn't have happened to him. F@(K her birthdate..."




Interesting comments!





911: “OK- how tall is she about? Or how much does she weigh…do you know that?”

Misty Croslin: “huh?”

911: “about how tall or how much she weigh?”

Misty Croslin: “24 sounds about right- I don’t know- she’s not that tall….”

911: “OK-wait- tell your husband we’ve got them coming, ok?”

Misty Croslin: “OK”

911: “How much does she weigh- do you know?”
Misty Croslin: “huh?”

The 911 Operator gets it. She understands now that Misty does not know and she must slow down and ask questions in a more simpler fashion. Do you know?? This shows te frustration.

Misty has yet to answer the specific questions about Haleigh, even though the 911 operator has been asking repeatedly. Misty is in a sensitive area. She was able to report the open door, the brick, and sleeping, without a problem. Now the focus is solely upon Haleigh and Misty is stumbling badly. If it was nerves, it would have showed itself from the beginning. Misty's responses are distinctly troubled now.

911: “How much does she weigh?”The 911 operator skillfully goes back to simple questions; one at a time. She is not going to get "she's about 4' tall, 41 lbs, blue eyes and brown hair" from Misty Croslin, as she would have from any parent, step parent, aunt, uncle, friend, or babysitter.

Misty Croslin: “um…like 40-50 pounds- 60 pounds?

911: “40-60 pounds?”

Misty Croslin: “yeah”
This is a huge spread for a 5 year old child, who has Turner's Syndrome, has to be under a doctor's care, and is tiny due to her growth problems. 40 lbs is one answer, but 60 lbs is a large percentage swing. It would be like saying that an adult female is between 120 lbs and 180 lbs. It is not credible, as a parent could attest. For a parent, who's tiny child may be 41 lbs, a jump of 10 percent would be a reason to celebrate; as it is noteworthy, given her condition.



911: “OK- let me get your name and phone number. Spell your last name…

spell your last name?

Was your back door locked do you know?”

Misty Croslin: “Yes…(inaudible)”

Ronald Cummings: “Man, I need somebody to get here now!”


This is a more normal response, "I" first person singular. The first person singular is what we would expect to hear from a biological parent, from the beginning.


911: “OK, let me speak to him…”

Ronald Cummings: “I just got home from work, my five-year-old daughter is gone- I need someone here now.”

Ronald says 3 things also. The order is important. What is first and foremost in the mind of Ronald Cummings that he wishes the police to know?

1. That he was at work ,and just came home.
2. his 5 year old daughter is missing.
3. He (singular) needs someone (unspecified) to come to his home.

911: “OK, listen to me…listen to me…we’ve got two officers…”

Ronald Cummings: “if I find whoever has my daughter before you all do, I’m killing them…I don’t care- I will spend the rest of my life in prison….you can put that on the recording…I don’t care.”


This is understandable for any parent who believes his child is kidnapped; to see vengence. It is only problematic for the reason that we do not know that Haleigh has been kidnapped. How does he not know that she simply walked off? Most kids are found near the home, wandering away. Is it the open door that leads him to believe a kidnapping has occured?

He makes a fatalistic sounding statement: He will spend the rest of his life in prison. Why? For killing? Isn't Florida the death penalty? Does he think a jury might not have mercy on a father who rescued his kidnapped child?

Or,

does he have reason to believe that he will spend the rest of his life in prison? Why did this unusual statement cross his mind?

Statistics and studies are done on 911 calls, and in specific, missing children, and domestic homicide. This call has begun with deception. Why does a 911 call to report a missing child NEED to be deceptive?

Is Ronald just beside himself with grief? It would appear that he is aware that the 911 call is being recorded and it is important enough for him to not only think it, but to actually speak it to the 911 operator. Is Ronald Cummings thinking that he is going to get life in prison? Why? Is he wild with anxiety over a missing child, or is he burning with anger?

When a child is reported missing by family who is not involved in the disappearance, the family is reported to be in a state of shock and even denial, for a period of time. The innocent do act like the parents who take polygraphs immediately, answer quesitons quickly and honestly, and then go out and search without delay. They appear to be almost like andrenaline junkies who's survival hormones and protective capacities are on full alert and have all the energy in the world to run and search for their child. They are often coached by law enforcement to sit still while others search, stay near the phone, and provide as much information as possible.

Ronald is not in the shock stage and has moved way past denial and is now seeking vengence. What does he know that he speaks this early in the case, of vengeance?


911: “It’s OK sir, we’ve got them on the way…ok- can you give me…what kind of description of pajamas was she wearing? “

Ronald Cummings: “I don’t f%$ know!”

Cummings:” Hello”

911:” OK sir let me just talk to your wife. Let me get some information from her. “

Misty: (inaudible) crying. “I don’t wanna…(inaudible)”

We don't know what Misty said, but by judging how she did under specific questions, it is not unreasonable for her to say "I don't wanna talk to them again!" meaning the 911 operator. Misty was fine when giving her possibly prepared speech, but when it came to questions, she buckled and couldn't even give a simple, basic and general description of Haleigh. Misty has the exact opposite reaction of a parental rush of adrenaline: she doesn't want to talk; she doesn't want to assist. Misty has a reason not to help locate Haleigh Cummings.


911: “Can I talk to her? OK”

Misty: “inaudible”

Cummings: (inaudible, in background ) “Where my daughter at?”

Is Ronald asking this presupposing that Misty knows where Haleigh is?


911:” Ma’am. OK listen I need you to answer some questions. Does the door look like it was pried open?”

Misty:” Umm… (inaudible)”


911 Operator is frustrated by this point and begins to make mistakes. She is actually coaching Misty on how to answer. This is why we ask open ended questions and seek to NOT introduce language to the subject: let her speak her own words at all times. Direct quesitons teach a subject to lie; as we teach them what WE know, and where WE are going with our questioning.



911: “Does it look like you had to sorta…like someone tried to enter your house.”

Misty: “Umm. Hold On.”

This is a major red flag.

Does she need to check with Ronald to see if this line is where she wants to go? Why would she need affirmation? She already said the back door was "bricked" open.

911:” And another thing, make sure you and your husband don’t touch the door anymore. Don’t mess with the door or anything. “

Misty: “No it doesn’t. “


It isn't what? We don't know. Misty did not answer questions as they were asked, as simple as they were. "it doesn't" what? We don't know the answer. We can guess: "it doesn't look like someone tried to enter?" We do know that Misty appeared to need Ronald's guidance for an answer to another simple question; much like we saw on the TV interview where Misty, unable to answer, just looked up to Ronald for guidance.

911: “it doesn’t look like it is?”

Misty: “No”

911: “Ok, now listen, tell your husband, do not touch anything- because we are going to get a k-9 out there”

Misty: “ok….she said don’t touch anything because they are bringing a k-9 out here”

Ronald Cummings: “they better bring f’ing something out here- because if I get my hands on that mother f’er I’m going to kill him…I don’t give a f%*)@# about prison…mother F’ing prison doesn’t scare me.”


Ronald is a violent man and is speaking his own language. This is his norm; his way of life. He threatens the "whoever" has his daughter, he threatens the police, and reiterates that he is going to prison.

Why would a distraught, disbelieving, shocked father of a five year old child continue to speak about prison?

"Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaketh"/

It is fair to ask yourself, how would I handle this? Would you be threatening? Would you have the bravado to say that prison doesn't frighten you? Would you even be thinking of prison, or being unafraid, or anything other than your missing child?

When pictures of Casey Anthony partying while her daughter was "missing" surfaced, Jose Baez floated the soon to sink "ugly coping" defense (she celebrated). But Cindy, in defense of Casey said, "there's no book on greiving, you know".

Actually, there is.

There is lots and lots of data collected, including how innocent and how guilty parents react when their children are reported missing. Federal law enforcement articles (the FBI Law Bulletin) and research (LSI) from thousands of polygraphs exist to guide us. There is a "book" response.

For innocent parents who find their children have gone missing? It is shock, and disbelief. Their hope sometimes continues even into denial, when they learn their child is deceased. Then they grieve, but anger is not the initial response.

Ronald is way past shock, disbelief, denial, and energetic searching. He is angry and his mind continues to go back to prison.



911:” ok, we understand- we’ve got them on the way

What’s her name…{redacted}…how do you spell her first name…{redacted}…what’s her middle name? …{redacted}. And the spelling of the last name is? …{redacted}.”

Misty: “well, that’s my last name”

911: “What’s her date of birth?

This question is way too much for Misty Croslin. What every parent would know, immediatley, is not for Misty even though she, on the same day said, "I loved that little girl like she was my own." Not only did she speak of a missing child in the past tense (an indicator that Misty knew already that Haleigh was dead) but that Misty was likely, and sadly, telling the truth. She likely would have raised a child in the manner of neglect that her parents raised her. I wouldn't be stunned to learn that Misty's father didn't know Misty's own date of birth.


Ronald Cummings: “i’m going to f’ing kill somebody”

Ron has made this abundantly clear. He is all about the rage and anger and is actually not convincing people he is a distraught dad, but is speaking the language that may be more familiar to him than loving parental protective instincts:

violence.



911:”Tell him we understand- we need to get her date of birth.”

Misty: “what’s her date of birth?”

Ronald Cummings: “F her date of birth- we need to find her- f her date of birth.”

Even in the most vulnerable position of needing help from others, Ronald is hostile and uncooperative with the law. Why would he not cooperate with them? Is he simply running out of patience?

911: ” Ok Listen to me, I’m getting this information- I’m not the officer driving out there ok? - they are coming out there to handle that situation. I need to gather all the information from you over the phone…it has nothing to do with me driving out there…ok? They are coming out there…ok?”

Misty: “ok”

911: “ok, I’m going to stay on the phone with you ok? Until they get there…ok?”

Misty: “ok”
(backgroud noise)

911: “tell him we’ve got them coming, he’s got to calm down a little bit. The officers are going to come out there and do what they can. We can’t have him screaming and yelling at the officers whenever they get there ok?”

By now, the 911 Operator has already warned the officers that they have a violent man, likely high on drugs, and may need to protect themselves. Local responders may already be well familiar with Ronald Cummings.

Misty:” Uh huh…”

Ronald Cummings: “where is my f’ing phone…we’ve got better people to talk to then some mother f’ers who ain’t coming.”


"How you let my daughter get stole, bitch?"
Ronald has the wherewithall to remind Misty of her substatus of "bitch" and is able to still maintain control by fear over her, subordinating her with the common language of domestic violence.

To him, Misty let his daughter get "stole".

Why doesn't he think Haliegh just wandered off? Why "stole"? Why does he blame Misty now, but shortly after, would marry her?

On its whole, the 911 call's intent is to alert police of a missing child.

It is deceptive. It is not only deceptive, but it appears to be setting an alibi and possibly a staged emotional reaction from Ronald.

Ronald's rage may be indicative that he knew his drug dealing had brought trouble to his home; or it could be something worse; that he is actually staging his reaction, after coaching Misty on how to report this to police.

It appears from Misty's pauses that she was being coached by Ronald Cummings.

Why would he coach the person responsible for letting his daughter get "stole"?

Why would he marry her?

Why would he reveal to her that Texas Equasearch had someone speaking to Misty to help find Haleigh?

What motivated Ronald Cummings to protect Misty from revealing the truth about his daughter, who's own name appears so difficult for his lips to frame and say?

7 comments:

john said...

OT..

Cops renew search for Stacy Peterson


By HLNtv.com Staff
updated 10:06 PM EST, Wed November 07, 2012

NEED TO KNOW

FBI reportedly searching wooded area for Stacy Peterson
Drew Peterson's fourth wife went missing in 2007
The missing mother's cell phone last pinged in the area.

http://www.hlntv.com/video/2012/11/07/cops-renew-search-stacy-peterson

Anonymous said...

Okay Peter. Help me out here... What is the need to go over Misty Croslin's hoaxed up BS phone call to 911 at 3:27 a.m. that morning, when we already know that the entire 911 scenerio was a set up to entrap Misty Croslin? Wasn't it subsequently proved that the initial call reporting Haleigh missing was made at 2:13 a.m. by an anonymous person at Ron's MH (from his landline phone) to a private # at the sheriff's office; whereupon Officer Bridget Dixon was sent to Ron's MH to investigate at that time?

Doesn't that already prove that everything Misty Croslin & Ronald Cummings did and said at 3:27 a.m. and thereafter, (and others) was a lie? Yet the whole world keeps harping on Misty's lies when the TRUTH is yet to be revealed. What I don't get is WHY?

According to Sgt Johnny Greenwood of the PCSO, wasn't there a record made of this 2:13 a.m. call? Yes, there was. Wasn't Misty reported by neighbors to have been outside sobbing hysterically and talking on her cell phone at 2:25 a.m.? She was, proving that she already knew Haleigh was dead (and so did others) when the call was made at 2:13 a.m. and when Misty made the 911 call at 3:27 a.m.

If this analysis is purely for the sake of statement analysis of a fake hoaxed up 911 call then I can understand that, but if this is for the sake of getting to the truth then this 911 call at 3:37 a.m. doesn't cut it when the truth IS that there is further evidence that Misty may not have even been there that evening until just prior to the 2:13 a.m. call;

that there are all those lies, tricks, schemes and devices set up by Teresa Neves, Ronald Cummings, Annette Sykes and others that have NOT been subsequently analyized? Misty had just turned 17 years old, was gullible and stupid; of course she was tapped AND trapped to lie for them and did. But what about the other liars? Thank you so much! I appreciate your response.

Anonymous said...

John, LE has made numerous searches for Tracy Peterson, all to no avail. It's interesting though, that her last cell phone ping came from the area of the recent search.

However, it had already been reported that a 'not-quite-bright' (therefore not considered credible) cousin-relative had helped Drew roll out and load a big blue barrel from Drew's property the same day (?) Tracy went missing. I doubt Drew would have disposed of her cell phone with her, but guess he could have. That would have also gotten rid of any evidence of phone calls she made prior to him killing her. But I don't think he would have unloaded the barrel in the woods, more likely out in waters making her impossible to find.

Sorry, I didn't read the link and have forgotten some of the earlier issues. Are you thinking that Drew dug a hole and buried Tracy and the barrel in the woods? Would that make sense, since he had a boat and could have easily disposed of her in a body of water?

Seamus O Riley said...

Anonymous 4:26

A prior call does not negate the Statement Analysis of this call.

Why would you believe that this is "bs" if a previous (or even latter) call was made?

How would a previous call impact the analysis of the words used in this call?

Your post does not make sense.

As to deletions:

This is a personal blog. I delete insults, and those who post off topic agendas.

I also delete ignorance as this blog is not intended to further falsehood and ignorance, nor to aid those who fail to learn from history.

I know that some anonymous posters crave attention but once in the Spam folder, their comments end up deleted automatically.

I also have others editing for me, making decisions to delete.

As to Christ's return: have you not read that the blessings will flow unto a "thousand generations"?

A little math will reveal the hype of 'late great planet earth' and the 'any moment' teachings are better suited for the ignorance of Hollywood and the bumper sticker mentality where intelligence, logic, and diligence is disparaged.

Peter

Anonymous said...

Peter, I understand you are saying my post does not make sense when it DOES as it relates to the entire 911 call made at 3:27 a.m. being a hoax by all parties involved at the time the call was made, prior too, and subsequently.

There are OTHERS who lied and not just Misty. It is the truth that I am seeking, not just revealing Misty's lies exclusively.

I do understand however, your endeavor at analyzing Misty's lies, which were, YES, all lies, just as there were others. That is not to say that your analysis of Misty's 911 lies isn't good as it definitely is.

Thank you for your response.

Anonymous said...

BTW Peter, I am familiar with The Late Great Planet Earth and Hal Lindsey, Benny Hinn, Joel Osteen, Joyce Meyer, Paul & Jan Crouch, Kenneth Copeland, Pat Robinson, et.al., just as I am with all the other televangelist wealthy hucksters (I call them beggars begging from the poor to buy another jet plane, another mansion, etc.)

They are wealth cultist, preaching 'name it and claim it' prosperity, the jet-set Word Of Faith scammers. THEY are the ones claiming it and doing a good job of taking it from people who aren't paying attention.

Twist it however they like; there isn't one word of truth in what they teach in The Book, not in the way they preach it. THAT is not the book I refer too when I mention THE BOOK. Thank you for your response.

Anonymous said...

It's no mystery why Ronald Cummings married Misty Croslin. He was trying to avoid charges of statutory rape. Suddenly in the spotlight with his daughter missing and living with a still underage Misty, the police could have prosecuted him on those charges to put pressure on him.